5 ms·
Flock impersonates journalist in order to cancel his hotel reservations
- andsoitis 29d ago> impersonates The person said: “…contact a hotel on my behalf…”. They didn’t claim impersonation.
- donkey_brains 29d ago[flagged]
- andsoitis 29d agoYou said it: false alarm. I might go further: the person who posted this story made up (aka lie) a headline which is not what the journalist claimed.
- jdjdkdisosk 29d ago[flagged]
- andsoitis 29d agoIf I booked as part of a block booking for a conference and the conference got cancelled or attendance criteria changed, it is nice if I don’t have to cancel the booking myself but instead the conference organizer did it on my behalf.
- miladyincontrol 29d agodirect thread link https://x.com/bennjordan/status/2089430236945342508 https://x.com/bennjordan/status/2089430236945342508
- evan_a_a 29d agoIf the journalist really did make a reservation under the room block for the event, and then was denied attendance to the event, it would seem fairly normal for the reservation to be canceled by the block holder. Really, if the journalist wanted to cover the event without being noticed he could've done so undercover.
- forestry 29d agoNot really. A block is just a group discount.
- bjtitus 29d agoAlso holding rooms for that block, though.
- cryptonector 29d agoPerhaps Flock would say that since they were denying the journalist a pass, they should also deny them the room block discount. The hotel could just charge the journalist the difference rather than cancel their room though.
- evan_a_a 29d agoThat comes with a contract between the hotel and the block holder.
- pseudo0 29d agoIt depends how it's set up. Often a block will reserve a certain number of rooms for attendees, to ensure people will have somewhere to stay close to the conference site. Usually any unbooked rooms in the block get released closer to the event date.
- code_biologist 29d agoIt does not seem likely that he booked it under the Flock room block. The text of the screenshotted email: "called on my behalf and canceled my hotel reservation that I personally made on Hilton's website. They also have not refunded the reservation, as it is now associated with Flock in the system." It doesn't clearly state that it was part of the room block at Benn's initial booking, and it implies that the booking was not associated with Flock when the initial booking was made.
- Freedom2 29d agoI wonder if this is in the typical runbook for other YC companies.
- techteach00 29d agoI'm vehemently anti-Flock but am upset the majority of that group, the people taking down these cameras, appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras everywhere.
- BugsJustFindMe 29d ago> "appear to be anti-cars because they won't do the same for surveillance speed cameras" You mean they appear to be anti-speeding.
- chung8123 29d agoBeing anti-speed cam do not mean pro speeding. I am anti breaking the law but I don't think we need surveillance everywhere to stop it.
- BugsJustFindMe 29d agoI don't know what you're responding to, but it's not my statement. Nobody said anything about being anti-speed-cam. The context is being pro-speed-cam.
- popalchemist 29d agoyou're not anti-car just because you don't oppose those cameras with the same vitriol. Flock is orders of magnitude more evil.
- techteach00 29d agoWhy?
- popalchemist 29d agobecause it's actively aiding fascism and the literal extrajudicial kidnapping, murder, and sex trafficking of children, women, and minorities at the behest of big brother who in the current administration are enacting literal fascist, borderline genocidal policies.
- deleted 29d ago[deleted]
- BugsJustFindMe 29d agoThe submitted headline editorializes a false claim. A 2-steps-from-origin word-of-mouth claim of "They told me someone called on my behalf" is not the same thing as "Flock impersonates". "they told me" (definitive) and "called on my behalf" (interpretable) are both important here.
- code_biologist 29d agoThe submitted headline dangerously distorts an evidenced claim to the point of falsehood.
- BugsJustFindMe 29d agoYes that's what I said.
- ryandrake 29d agoThey're unimportant wording nit-picks, but actually, if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel: The hotel should only let the actual traveler cancel their booking. The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking? If you think so, please let me know next time you have travel plans and we'll put that to the test. I would hope the hotel would not be vulnerable to that kind of attack.
- BugsJustFindMe 29d ago> They're unimportant wording nit-picks. They're false statements of fact. > if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel I see now suddenly we've gone from "Flock bad" to "hotel bad". I hope you recognize the importance of that shift in blame in relation to the submitted headline. > The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking? A booking made in a designated room block. If you call the hotel and claim to be a member of my family reunion then I'm going to call the hotel and tell them that you lied.
- s1artibartfast 29d agoSeems fine. Blocks can be reserved or purchased by companies and have final say on who uses them, such as customers/attendees that did not misrepresent themselves. Dude can book without the block or go to a different Hotel.
- purpleidea 29d agoWhy is this flagged? Impersonation is a big deal :/
- s1artibartfast 29d agoBecause the title is an editorial lie and no one impersonated anyone. Nobody even claimed that if you follow the link
- purpleidea 29d agoI actually did read the whole thing. Read what the journalist said... You can't call and cancel someone's hotel reservation on their behalf. That's super sketch.
- s1artibartfast 29d agoNobody impersonated anyone. Turns out you can cancel someone's reservation if it is tied to you.